The method behind the number
Every claim on this site links here. A number you cannot inspect is just a louder adjective so this is where we show the work: the instrument, the cohort, the comparison and its limits, and the result stated exactly as it stands. We also name what the audit does not do.Every claim on this site links here. A number you cannot inspect is just a louder adjective, so this is where we show the work: the instrument we measure with, the cohort we ran, the comparison and where it is limited, and the result stated exactly as it stands. We also name what the audit does not do.
What we measure
The Composite Body Score is a single 100-point score built from three subscores. Each itemizes the findings behind it rather than reporting only a value.Each subscore itemizes the findings behind it rather than reporting only a value.
points, one number
One number, through different lenses
The audit reads your body through four domains at once.
How the frame is aligned, and where posture is deviating.
What body composition says about muscle and fat.
What load the frame can take, and at what dose.
How a symptom traces to a cause up or down the chain.
These are reading lenses, not four separate scores. The audit score one composite. We name the lenses because a body is not a single dial, and a score that pretended it was would be the kind of number we would not trust either. “Improvement,” on this page and everywhere else, means a measured rise in that composite, computed the same way every month on the same instrument.
The validation
We ran a 120-person validation cohort, assessed at baseline, four weeks, and six months. The result, stated exactly as it stands:
The resultAt four weeks, Mithrion participants gain twice the Composite Body Score improvement of a matched benchmark group under elite personal coaching. At six months, the gap reaches 8×.
We state it verbatim on purpose. Rounding it up or dressing it in adjectives would undo the only thing that makes a number worth reading.
The comparison anchor
The benchmark is elite personal coaching. Not the average gym-goer, and not an untrained control. We chose the hardest available comparison on purpose.: if you are going to claim an edge, claim it against the strongest version of the thing you are replacing.
Derived from published outcome benchmarks for elite personal coaching.
The gap widens from four weeks to six months for a structural reason, not a marketing one. Each monthly re-audit makes the next protocol adjustment more precise, and sequential structural fixes produce interdependent improvements. The advantage compounds because the corrections compound.
What this is not
Plainly, because credibility lives here.
It reads physical condition and postural deviations, front and side. It does not name a medical condition, and it is not a substitute for a clinician.
It improves physiological performance. Performance and disease are different claims, and we keep them separate because only one is ours to make.
It reads what two photos show: structure, composition, and balance from the outside. Not an X-ray, not a blood panel, and it does not pretend to be.
Stating the edges of the instrument is not hedging. It is how you know the readings inside those edges are real.
Now run it on your own body
Two photos, one read, a protocol, coaching that runs it. Same instrument you just read about.